No one told those rules to our nearby gun range (who has a buddy buddy relationship with the sheriff dept). Which is why our HOA has a lawsuit against them because people keep finding bullets in their yards, roofs, etc.
Lawsuit is necessary because they - and the sheriff - kept shrugging and saying "can't prove it was them".
somehow they can match bullets to guns when it's putting a black person in jail forever, but when it's the sheriff and his bros shooting your house it's just impossible to know where those rounds came from.
Bullet proof* vests are the modern equivalent of plate armor. I don't think the US would spend $10M per soldier to protect them, because the US Government currently lists the total average value of a human life at ~$7.5M USD.
*for a given value of proof.
0
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
This feels like something that would have been tested by Mythbusters
As you may recall, they had a very bad time with an errant cannonball that escaped the testing range, went across a highway, through a house, and then into a minivan - it was a minor miracle that nobody was hurt.
There was also the closest they ever came to making a WMD with the water heater experiment.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Wasn't one of the purposes of the beanbag round, beside being "less lethal", that it was a reasonable substitute in cases where you had concerns like overpenetration?
Or is being in an enclosed space too problematic?
Beanbag rounds should not be used indoors because it is not appropriate to shoot them directly at a target.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Wasn't one of the purposes of the beanbag round, beside being "less lethal", that it was a reasonable substitute in cases where you had concerns like overpenetration?
Or is being in an enclosed space too problematic?
Beanbag rounds should not be used indoors because it is not appropriate to shoot them directly at a target.
That's definitely been an issue in the past, that because they were originally "non-lethal", and now "less lethal", police had greater discretion to use them. And therefore it became an issue of no longer being a last resort.
In this specific situation though, if the choice is sidearm rounds, or shotgun beanbag rounds, is it really more dangerous to the person being shot? And if it's not, wouldn't the safety of it not punching through multiple walls in an apartment complex not be preferred?
I'm not talking about "less lethal" usage. But if you're going into a situation where guns are drawn, wouldn't a non-penetrating firearm be a better option?
This feels like something that would have been tested by Mythbusters
As you may recall, they had a very bad time with an errant cannonball that escaped the testing range, went across a highway, through a house, and then into a minivan - it was a minor miracle that nobody was hurt.
There was also the closest they ever came to making a WMD with the water heater experiment.
Tree trunk cannon. Methane sewer explosion. 2-1/2 tons of explosive in a cement mixer.
If guns are drawn, cops should using their sidearm. A cop should never use a weapon designed for compliance lethally.
These weapons are already used improperly by cops. This would encourage that behavior.
I get the latter concern. Because it's a fucking big one.
But I'm trying to think of it from the perspective of people in adjacent apartments.
Don't get me wrong, I wish we lived in a place where police use of force wasn't treated so lax, and there was any real accountability.
But if we can't live in that place, giving them weapons that can't kill people in adjacent apartments seems like a small compromise.
I'm approaching this from a purely practical perspective, not a philosophical one. I'm of the opinion most police shouldn't be have lethal weapons as part of their kit, and that ANY use of force should be properly investigated.
Just wondered if there was a practical reason (hence my query about confined spaces), rather than the use of frangibles or other attempts at low penetrative live rounds.
+3
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
If guns are drawn, cops should using their sidearm. A cop should never use a weapon designed for compliance lethally.
These weapons are already used improperly by cops. This would encourage that behavior.
Yeah, the standard beat cop shouldn't even be allowed to carry a firearm. At worst, they can keep a firearm in their vehicle, but it should be called in even before they retrieve it. Otherwise, armed police should be a specific team with special oversight and never something that patrols.
If guns are drawn, cops should using their sidearm. A cop should never use a weapon designed for compliance lethally.
These weapons are already used improperly by cops. This would encourage that behavior.
I get the latter concern. Because it's a fucking big one.
But I'm trying to think of it from the perspective of people in adjacent apartments.
Don't get me wrong, I wish we lived in a place where police use of force wasn't treated so lax, and there was any real accountability.
But if we can't live in that place, giving them weapons that can't kill people in adjacent apartments seems like a small compromise.
I'm approaching this from a purely practical perspective, not a philosophical one. I'm of the opinion most police shouldn't be have lethal weapons as part of their kit, and that ANY use of force should be properly investigated.
Just wondered if there was a practical reason (hence my query about confined spaces), rather than the use of frangibles or other attempts at low penetrative live rounds.
Practically bean bag rounds and rubber bullets are worse at doing what you want a gun to do.
Frangibles are believed by some to have insufficient stopping power to be used in place of hollow points.
Most cops would be of that opinion regarding frangibles. But I wouldn't mind them being required to use them. I believe some federal law enforcement agencies use them.
If guns are drawn, cops should using their sidearm. A cop should never use a weapon designed for compliance lethally.
These weapons are already used improperly by cops. This would encourage that behavior.
Yeah, the standard beat cop shouldn't even be allowed to carry a firearm. At worst, they can keep a firearm in their vehicle, but it should be called in even before they retrieve it. Otherwise, armed police should be a specific team with special oversight and never something that patrols.
Especially since I watched a cop on duty at a baseball game nearly draw on a ball that bounced near him.
If guns are drawn, cops should using their sidearm. A cop should never use a weapon designed for compliance lethally.
These weapons are already used improperly by cops. This would encourage that behavior.
Yeah, the standard beat cop shouldn't even be allowed to carry a firearm. At worst, they can keep a firearm in their vehicle, but it should be called in even before they retrieve it. Otherwise, armed police should be a specific team with special oversight and never something that patrols.
Especially since I watched a cop on duty at a baseball game nearly draw on a ball that bounced near him.
Unless they've changed what baseballs look like, that doesn't make any sense!
Agreed. Baseballs are still white.
shryke on
+20
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I would like to give that cop the benefit of the doubt and say he was muscle memory his way though weapon retention policy/practice and wasn't about to remove his gun from the holster.
He probably doesn't deserve it, but I would like to stay sane.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Reminds me of the cops that start blasting the instant they hear a car backfire in their earshot. Like the ones who did so directly into a crowd leaving a high school sports game.
If you're that fucking twitchy you have no business being near anything involving the potential of life and death.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the due process rights of two Alabama women were not violated when they both had to wait over a year for a court hearing to challenge the police seizure of their cars.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court's conservative majority held in the case Culley v. Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama that property owners in civil asset forfeiture proceedings have no due process right to a preliminary court hearing to determine if police had probable cause to seize their property.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case—two consolidated cases both involving Alabama women whose cars were seized by police for offenses they were not involved or charged with—last year.
In the first case, Halima Culley's son was pulled over by police in Satsuma, Alabama, while driving Culley's car. He was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The City of Satsuma also seized Culley's car. It took 20 months, during all of which Culley was bereft of her vehicle, before a state court ruled that she was entitled to the return of her car under Alabama's innocent-owner defense.
In the second case, a friend of Lena Sutton took her car to run an errand in 2019. He was pulled over by police in Leesburg, Alabama, who found methamphetamine in the car and seized it. Sutton also eventually was granted summary judgment on an innocent-owner defense, but not until more than a year after the initial seizure of her car.
The cops can take your shit without charging you with any crime, and SCOTUS just ruled that it's fine to just put off you being able to fight that in court for as long as the government feels like putting it off. Because the cops need your shit more than you do.
Law enforcement agencies bolster their budgets with forfeiture funds in interesting ways. A 2017 report from the Philadelphia Weekly found that police used the money to purchase, among other things, submachine guns, uniform embroidery, web design services, and a lawn mower, along with tens of thousands of dollars in cash withdrawals. (Forfeiture money also went toward satisfying someone's parking ticket.) In 2021, law enforcement in Georgia were revealed to have spent the money illegally on furniture, Fitbits, gym paraphernalia, and vehicles. In police seminars a few years back, session leaders offered suggestions for what sort of property to target based on cops' wishlists, which included flat-screen televisions—those "are very popular with the police departments," one government employee said on video—along with cash and cars (the nicer the better).
Indeed, governments across the U.S. collectively take billions of dollars each year in forfeitures. Between 2002 and 2018, according to the I.J. report, people forfeited at least $63 billion. That stratospheric figure woefully undercounts the actual total, as only 20 states and the feds provided data for that time frame.
So it's not surprising, then, that the government opposes even modest measures of accountability and due process—something as simple as a hearing—when they come across people like Serrano and Wilson. Deprived of the ability to formally and publicly air the cases against them, which are often less than flimsy, the government can pressure victims into giving up their assets entirely or accepting a "deal" like the $1,800 offer Wilson received [instead of having her vehicle returned].
Reminds me of the cops that start blasting the instant they hear a car backfire in their earshot. Like the ones who did so directly into a crowd leaving a high school sports game.
If you're that fucking twitchy you have no business being near anything involving the potential of life and death.
It's not even about being twitchy, it's that they see themselves as the cops in the 70s and 80s films where the hero guns down criminals left and right. They so desperately want to be that, with no inclination of how stupid that is outside of a movie.
I am reminded of the couple who's car backfired outside of a police station and over a dozen cops opened fire, killing them, with one cop running up and jumping on the hood of the car to fire into the cabin and not a single cop was penalized for it.
No one told those rules to our nearby gun range (who has a buddy buddy relationship with the sheriff dept). Which is why our HOA has a lawsuit against them because people keep finding bullets in their yards, roofs, etc.
Lawsuit is necessary because they - and the sheriff - kept shrugging and saying "can't prove it was them".
somehow they can match bullets to guns when it's putting a black person in jail forever, but when it's the sheriff and his bros shooting your house it's just impossible to know where those rounds came from.
The science between ballistic matching is really, really sketchy. Fortunately, some courts are beginning to realize that. The Maryland supreme court ruled last year that prosecutors can only argue that a bullet came from a given model of gun, not a particular gun.
On the other hand, there's also currently a case in Indiana where the police/prosecution are arguing that they can somehow match an unfired round to a gun it was allegedly ejected from.
On the other hand, there's also currently a case in Indiana where the police/prosecution are arguing that they can somehow match an unfired round to a gun it was allegedly ejected from.
On the other hand, there's also currently a case in Indiana where the police/prosecution are arguing that they can somehow match an unfired round to a gun it was allegedly ejected from.
Through what, speaking in tongues to the round?
It hasn't gone to trial yet, but I assume that they're going to argue that the action of ejecting the round left some kind of distinguishing mark on the casing from the extractor or whatever.
On the other hand, there's also currently a case in Indiana where the police/prosecution are arguing that they can somehow match an unfired round to a gun it was allegedly ejected from.
Through what, speaking in tongues to the round?
It hasn't gone to trial yet, but I assume that they're going to argue that the action of ejecting the round left some kind of distinguishing mark on the casing from the extractor or whatever.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the due process rights of two Alabama women were not violated when they both had to wait over a year for a court hearing to challenge the police seizure of their cars.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court's conservative majority held in the case Culley v. Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama that property owners in civil asset forfeiture proceedings have no due process right to a preliminary court hearing to determine if police had probable cause to seize their property.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case—two consolidated cases both involving Alabama women whose cars were seized by police for offenses they were not involved or charged with—last year.
In the first case, Halima Culley's son was pulled over by police in Satsuma, Alabama, while driving Culley's car. He was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The City of Satsuma also seized Culley's car. It took 20 months, during all of which Culley was bereft of her vehicle, before a state court ruled that she was entitled to the return of her car under Alabama's innocent-owner defense.
In the second case, a friend of Lena Sutton took her car to run an errand in 2019. He was pulled over by police in Leesburg, Alabama, who found methamphetamine in the car and seized it. Sutton also eventually was granted summary judgment on an innocent-owner defense, but not until more than a year after the initial seizure of her car.
The cops can take your shit without charging you with any crime, and SCOTUS just ruled that it's fine to just put off you being able to fight that in court for as long as the government feels like putting it off. Because the cops need your shit more than you do.
Law enforcement agencies bolster their budgets with forfeiture funds in interesting ways. A 2017 report from the Philadelphia Weekly found that police used the money to purchase, among other things, submachine guns, uniform embroidery, web design services, and a lawn mower, along with tens of thousands of dollars in cash withdrawals. (Forfeiture money also went toward satisfying someone's parking ticket.) In 2021, law enforcement in Georgia were revealed to have spent the money illegally on furniture, Fitbits, gym paraphernalia, and vehicles. In police seminars a few years back, session leaders offered suggestions for what sort of property to target based on cops' wishlists, which included flat-screen televisions—those "are very popular with the police departments," one government employee said on video—along with cash and cars (the nicer the better).
Indeed, governments across the U.S. collectively take billions of dollars each year in forfeitures. Between 2002 and 2018, according to the I.J. report, people forfeited at least $63 billion. That stratospheric figure woefully undercounts the actual total, as only 20 states and the feds provided data for that time frame.
So it's not surprising, then, that the government opposes even modest measures of accountability and due process—something as simple as a hearing—when they come across people like Serrano and Wilson. Deprived of the ability to formally and publicly air the cases against them, which are often less than flimsy, the government can pressure victims into giving up their assets entirely or accepting a "deal" like the $1,800 offer Wilson received [instead of having her vehicle returned].
It's wild to call them conservative while they are expanding government overreach
That's what conservatism is about. State's rights and government overreach are just talking points. Conservatives only talk about state's rights and government overreach because they couldn't implement the fucked up shit they wanted to nationally, so the next best thing was to implemented it in the areas they controlled. Government overreach is only a thing when the federal government slaps down whatever bullshit they're trying to do or if it implements something to help people they want to hurt.
Within hours after Thomas Perez Jr. called police to report his father missing, he found himself in a tiny interrogation room confronted by Fontana detectives determined to extract a confession that he killed his dad.
Perez had told police that his father, 71-year-old Thomas Perez Sr., went out for a walk with the family dog at about 10 p.m. on Aug. 7, 2018. The dog returned within minutes without Perez’s father. Investigators didn’t believe his story, and over the next 17 hours they grilled him to try to get to the “truth.”
[...]
According to court records, detectives told Perez that his father was dead, that they had recovered his body and it now “wore a toe tag at the morgue.” They said they had evidence that Perez killed his father and that he should just admit it, records show.
[...]
At one point during the interrogation, the investigators even threatened to have his pet Labrador Retriever, Margosha, euthanized as a stray, and brought the dog into the room so he could say goodbye. “OK? Your dog’s now gone, forget about it,” said an investigator.
“How can you sit there, how can you sit there and say you don’t know what happened, and your dog is sitting there looking at you, knowing that you killed your dad?” a detective said. “Look at your dog. She knows, because she was walking through all the blood.”
But wait, it gets worse.
He was so distraught that he even tried to hang himself with the drawstring from his shorts after being left alone in the interrogation room. Perez was arrested, handcuffed and transported to a mental hospital for 72-hour observation.
But later that day, the truth derailed the detectives’ theory and their prized confession.
Perez’s father wasn’t dead — or even missing. Thomas Sr. was at Los Angeles International Airport waiting for a flight to see his daughter in Northern California. But police didn’t immediately tell Perez.
They tortured a confession out of an innocent man for a crime they made up, instead of helping him when he sought their assistance.
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
Of the 4 cops involved in the torture, 3 still work there and the 4th retired. It's been six years to get this settlement, and the victim felt he had to settle as a jury trial could see the cops walk under Qualified Immunity
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
The city paid out 900,000 dollars but those officers still work there. They weren't fired, neither they nor the department are going to be paying any of that back. They tried to illicit a confession based on what amounts to non verbal cues (I.E bullshit) and the dubious reaction of a police dog (which we know are heavily influenced by their desire to give their handlers the reaction they seem to want). And nothing is going to happen to them. It's disgusting.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
+23
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
The Civil Rights Lawyer on YouTube showed the video (blurred).
The officer whistles to the dog and it comes to him. He then tries to grab it with a lasso pole but it's extended out full length and the dog is by his ankles. After a short time the dog seems to decide it's not getting petted and starts to wander around ignoring the cop.
He fucks around trying to get the lasso in the dog for six minutes while it sniffs trees and pees. Then he mutters something, tosses the pole aside, draws his weapon and pauses for two full seconds before firing, and then several seconds again before firing again and then throwing the dog in a drainage ditch. He laughed at the property owner and the dog owner.
The city said the dog was severely injured, had rabies, and attacked the officer... but then they released the body camera that showed it did nothing but wander around and do dog stuff during the entire interaction.
So basically he's incompetent, gets impatient and frustrated because of his own incompetence, and decides to shoot the dog because it's easier... and possibly because he gets that sweet sweet dopamine hit from getting to kill something.
And the city says there was no wrongdoing. Unbelievable.
I really don't understand why I choose to click on this thread when I'm in a good mood.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
+26
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
The worst crime in the world is to make a police officer look or feel foolish.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
I've had police knocking on our door a couple times and I've always worried about our dogs, particularly since one is a pitbull. This shit drives me crazy.
Posts
somehow they can match bullets to guns when it's putting a black person in jail forever, but when it's the sheriff and his bros shooting your house it's just impossible to know where those rounds came from.
I install those. I assure you they aren't saving anything.
*for a given value of proof.
There was also the closest they ever came to making a WMD with the water heater experiment.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Beanbag rounds should not be used indoors because it is not appropriate to shoot them directly at a target.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
That's definitely been an issue in the past, that because they were originally "non-lethal", and now "less lethal", police had greater discretion to use them. And therefore it became an issue of no longer being a last resort.
In this specific situation though, if the choice is sidearm rounds, or shotgun beanbag rounds, is it really more dangerous to the person being shot? And if it's not, wouldn't the safety of it not punching through multiple walls in an apartment complex not be preferred?
I'm not talking about "less lethal" usage. But if you're going into a situation where guns are drawn, wouldn't a non-penetrating firearm be a better option?
Tree trunk cannon. Methane sewer explosion. 2-1/2 tons of explosive in a cement mixer.
These weapons are already used improperly by cops. This would encourage that behavior.
I get the latter concern. Because it's a fucking big one.
But I'm trying to think of it from the perspective of people in adjacent apartments.
Don't get me wrong, I wish we lived in a place where police use of force wasn't treated so lax, and there was any real accountability.
But if we can't live in that place, giving them weapons that can't kill people in adjacent apartments seems like a small compromise.
I'm approaching this from a purely practical perspective, not a philosophical one. I'm of the opinion most police shouldn't be have lethal weapons as part of their kit, and that ANY use of force should be properly investigated.
Just wondered if there was a practical reason (hence my query about confined spaces), rather than the use of frangibles or other attempts at low penetrative live rounds.
Yeah, the standard beat cop shouldn't even be allowed to carry a firearm. At worst, they can keep a firearm in their vehicle, but it should be called in even before they retrieve it. Otherwise, armed police should be a specific team with special oversight and never something that patrols.
Practically bean bag rounds and rubber bullets are worse at doing what you want a gun to do.
Frangibles are believed by some to have insufficient stopping power to be used in place of hollow points.
Most cops would be of that opinion regarding frangibles. But I wouldn't mind them being required to use them. I believe some federal law enforcement agencies use them.
Especially since I watched a cop on duty at a baseball game nearly draw on a ball that bounced near him.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
That's that warrior training paying dividends.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
They haven't changed what acorns look like in centuries but...
Agreed. Baseballs are still white.
He probably doesn't deserve it, but I would like to stay sane.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
If you're that fucking twitchy you have no business being near anything involving the potential of life and death.
The cops can take your shit without charging you with any crime, and SCOTUS just ruled that it's fine to just put off you being able to fight that in court for as long as the government feels like putting it off. Because the cops need your shit more than you do.
Another article from last year with more infuriating details:
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's not even about being twitchy, it's that they see themselves as the cops in the 70s and 80s films where the hero guns down criminals left and right. They so desperately want to be that, with no inclination of how stupid that is outside of a movie.
I am reminded of the couple who's car backfired outside of a police station and over a dozen cops opened fire, killing them, with one cop running up and jumping on the hood of the car to fire into the cabin and not a single cop was penalized for it.
The science between ballistic matching is really, really sketchy. Fortunately, some courts are beginning to realize that. The Maryland supreme court ruled last year that prosecutors can only argue that a bullet came from a given model of gun, not a particular gun.
On the other hand, there's also currently a case in Indiana where the police/prosecution are arguing that they can somehow match an unfired round to a gun it was allegedly ejected from.
Through what, speaking in tongues to the round?
It hasn't gone to trial yet, but I assume that they're going to argue that the action of ejecting the round left some kind of distinguishing mark on the casing from the extractor or whatever.
so, speaking in tongues?
"The court's conservative majority..."
The court's fascist majority, actually.
That's what conservatism is about. State's rights and government overreach are just talking points. Conservatives only talk about state's rights and government overreach because they couldn't implement the fucked up shit they wanted to nationally, so the next best thing was to implemented it in the areas they controlled. Government overreach is only a thing when the federal government slaps down whatever bullshit they're trying to do or if it implements something to help people they want to hurt.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
But wait, it gets worse.
They tortured a confession out of an innocent man for a crime they made up, instead of helping him when he sought their assistance.
You can't reform this.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The officer whistles to the dog and it comes to him. He then tries to grab it with a lasso pole but it's extended out full length and the dog is by his ankles. After a short time the dog seems to decide it's not getting petted and starts to wander around ignoring the cop.
He fucks around trying to get the lasso in the dog for six minutes while it sniffs trees and pees. Then he mutters something, tosses the pole aside, draws his weapon and pauses for two full seconds before firing, and then several seconds again before firing again and then throwing the dog in a drainage ditch. He laughed at the property owner and the dog owner.
The city said the dog was severely injured, had rabies, and attacked the officer... but then they released the body camera that showed it did nothing but wander around and do dog stuff during the entire interaction.
And the city says there was no wrongdoing. Unbelievable.